Democracy, said Churchill, is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Or something quite close to that. A similar observation may be made of the Canadian approach to multiculturalism.

Immigration policy in Canada is without a doubt imperfect, historically famous for lengthy process and bureaucratic tedium for prospective immigrants (slowly yet progressively improved by both Conservative and Liberal governments over the last two generations), but is pursued with broad and sustained public support (a percentage of rural francophones notwithstanding, as noted correctly in your article) because a healthy majority of Canadians, especially outside Quebec, do not demand or expect that newcomers to our country forsake their respective cultural identities.

In Canada, longstanding school curriculum teaches our kids that America is the world's cultural "melting pot," whereas Canadian society is more like a "tossed salad." The contrast, admittedly over-simplified, is quite true to the mark at its essence and is an effective shorthand for the differences in national identities North and South of the 49th parallel. You want to work hard, play by the rules (and maybe even hold the door open for a stranger?) Welcome/Bienvenue! The overwhelming majority of our population doesn't care about the colour of your skin, your faith, your gender or sexual orientation when evaluating your suitabilty for citizenship in the Great White North. (An affinity for hockey may be considered an asset, however. Apply within.)

I am Canadian. I don't need you to be like me. I invite you to be with me. I value things like life, family, freedom, equality, peace, opportunity and tolerance. No doubt there is a better model for a modern multicultural society, but I'm not sure the world has seen it yet.

By no means is Canadian multiculturalism perfect...but I would venture to say that it the best model anywhere in the world. I emigrated to Canada from Malta almost 50 years ago when I was 20 years old. Since then I have also lived and worked in four other countries. I can honestly say that only in Canada do I feel no sense of any discrimination.....of being labelled an "immigrant" or an "foreigner" . I feel at home here in every respect, with as much opportunity to grow and prosper as any native born Canadian. This is a remarkable country in many ways.....or as our late Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau said..."a kinder and gentler society" in a not so subtle a comparison with our southern neighbor.

Religion or culture should not trump commonsense. A Sikh wearing a turban is fine most of the time except when in danger of getting shot at. It's not just the injury but the liability for the state afterwards. If he were to live as a paraplegic, the society has to bear the cost. Thus, societal interest should be foremost.

It's the same with any kind of head, face or body covering. For example, how can airport security ensure the person behind the covering is the same person on the passport? Basically, if people are unwilling to change their attitudes from their places of birth, they should not venture out.

Multiculturalism is not an unabashed good nor is it an unabashed evil. Canada benefits if it gets well-educated, hard-working, and open-minded immigrants. It loses if it lets in uneducated, tradition-bound, and bigoted immigrants. In other words, an entrepreneur from India who founds a new software company is a huge win whereas a refugee from Somalia who believes only in his religion and cuts off his daughter's clitoris is a huge loss.

PQ has done nothing since winning the minority govt.. Except stir up stupid debates.. Economy is in shambles.. People are leaving province in droves.. Bridges are collapsing.. Corporate head offices are moving away (30% drop since 1990s).. Jobs are being lost.. Yet the most important subject of the day in Quebec politics is preventing me from wearing kippa while working in a hospital saving people's lives.. This is on top of me paying 12% higher tax than in Ontario.

Speaking as a Canadian, I would say that most of what this article says about Canadian views on immigration were true... 20 years ago. Now, not so much. Programs such as the Temporary Foreign Workers Program are widely seen as nothing more than companies bringing in cheap foreign workers to work for less than what Canadians will. Other things such as allowing immigrants to bring in disabled and elderly relatives are rightly seen by Canadians as disasters for our hard pressed healthcare system. The widely abused refugee program and the legions of lawyers that help keep the so called refugees in Canada despite not being real refugees is despised by Canadians. The huge increase in immigrant population in our cities is seen as one of the main drivers in the large increase in housing costs. Vancouver is simply unaffordable by anyone but the super rich (from Hong Kong)

Multiculturalism means different things to different people and in different countries. As a Canadian I believe however that a large proportion of Canadians, but by no means all, would agree that law abiding residents in Canada can both honour and enjoy (both as individuals and as groups) the heritage of their forefathers (from wherever they come) while simultaneously being active and valuable participants in the broader Canadian society.

We generally appreciate that this process of cultural accommodation is both enriching for Canada as a whole but also challenging. Canada has experienced large waves of immigration of peoples deemed alien upon their arrival (the famine Irish and US Black former slaves being amongst the first)and we have noted that within a couple of generations these people have become an integral part of the Canadian fabric without thereby ceasing to enjoy an individual and communal experience of aspects of their ancestral culture within the broaderCanadian context.

There have been rough patches (ex. Toronto in the late 19th century was known as the Belfast, but not in a good way, of North America and anti-Asian attitudes dominated British Columbia politics for much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) but recalling these and other examples now in light of current attitudes relating to those earlier immigration waves illustrate that significant progress has been the norm.

Canada, like all other societies, is a work in progress, and arguably Canadians have the advantage of acknowledging, accepting and planning constructively for its diverse but inclusive country.

1. Canada is empty. We need a population of at least 50 million in order to have a viable internal economy and to cease to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for our neighbours to the south. Our aging native-born population is no longer growing biologically. We are only growing as a result of immigration. We need immigrants and have to make them feel welcome. Multiculturalism is not just a sign of an enlightened society. It is a necessity. 2. Canadian do not so much “back” multiculturalism as simply accept it as a fact of life. At least in some parts of the country people of all manner of culture, religion, and dress are just no big deal anymore and the restaurants keep getting better. 3. However, outside of the regions of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and, of late, Calgary, however, Canada is not multicultural. It is traditionally white Anglophone or Francophone and comparatively devoid of recent immigrants, especially people of visibly different colour or clothing. 4. The “immigrant doctor driving a taxi” is the exception not the rule. Overwhelmingly, professional immigrants achieve a better life economically and politically for themselves and their children by coming to Canada. Otherwise they wouldn’t come. These people are not the foolish dupes that some of the comments on this article apparently believe them to be. If their lives here were not better and known to be better than in the countries they came from they would simply return or never come in the first place. 5. The “brain drain” is not an entirely one-sided affair. Billions of dollars every year are sent back to families in developing countries as remittance payments. Such international cash flows have become a significant component of the economies of all countries-of-origin. 6. The Parti Quebecois is to be commended for proposing a Charter that elevates gender equality and non-discriminatory secularism. It is to be condemned, indeed ridiculed for stupidly and unnecessarily making an issue of religious symbols. It is reasonable to expect immigrants to adapt their culture, but culture is not the same as religion. Culture is what people do. Religion is who people are. This fact is accepted by most people in most of the rest of Canada. Quebec will either come around or reap the consequences of self-inflicted emigration.

I'm a Brazilian immigrant in Canada who moved here when my husband was transferred. Initially, I thought I would have no problem finding a job, as I have 2 Bachelors degrees (business and accounting), 7 years experience in corporate finance, am a native English speaker, and speak another 3 languages. According to government standards, I was gold. That was not the case. None of the firms in Alberta gave me the time of day. I was shocked! I soon started talking to people and met doctors driving cabs, experienced oil engineers working at Safeway, and professors delivering my pizza. I was extremely alarmed seeing the discrepancy between what the government "sold" on immigration prospects and how the market perceived immigrants. After I got a job in a small accounting firm at a entry level position, my boss shortly told me that he was amazed I knew so much (I was overqualified for the job), and he didnt expect it from me. Canada is great if you get transferred or have connections. For people trying their luck, there's a chance you will end up serving tables or working retail, no matter your qualification.

To put it bluntly, muslim immigration is problematic. Muslims emigrate from muslim countries(there are 53 of them) where most of the basic human rights as we know them in the western world (men and women are equals and gays have a right to live)are not respected.
Then they send zealots to non muslim countries to convert them to Islam. They try to impose their faith and values to the countries that welcome them. If they do not succeed,they create enclaves that seek statehood and turn them into muslim states. That is what they did in Kosovo and are trying to do in Centrafrique, Niger, Mali, Tchad, Nigeria.
They recruit teenagers (thousands of them) on the streets of Bonn, Bristol, Bordeaux, Calgary or Baltimore to fight their holy war in Syria. They give them a couple of days of training and send them to die on the front. Or they make them drive suicide trucks. What are those teens going to do when they return to the countries of the infidels that they left behind?

This is a classic example of "everything's fine in Canada" journalism. Canada's polite population, comprised mainly of Mounties and lumberjacks, have no beefs about anything. And that will do it for another 12 months till the Economist checks in on us again.

Actually, some recent polls have shown deep concern about the levels of immigration, even among immigrants! (Google the National Post.) When immigrants begin complaining about immigration, you know there is a problem. We have Iranian PhDs driving taxis and Chinese surgeons pouring coffee at McDonalds. They gave up on pursuing their chosen careers, and now see every new planeload of arrivals as competition for their miserable service-sector jobs.

The article should also have mentioned the coming debt crisis in Canada, fueled by household debt that now exceeds the peak reached in the US in 2007-08. A recession could change everything, and it will be worst in the "cosmopolis" areas that this magazine is holding up as quasi-utopian societies.

Toronto has always been something of a house of cards, living mainly on rising real estate values and a construction industry that could collapse as quickly as southern Spain's. We will see what the city will be like when the average house loses 25% of its value (a conservative estimate) and half a million people are financially underwater. When the urban "smart set" suddenly need an extra job to pay their mortgage, what will they think of the hordes of newcomers then?

I believe that the evidences that the article uses to say that "Canadians, even in Quebec, overwhelmingly back mass immigration" are misleading.

The high percentage of foreign-born population in Canada does not mean that "Canadians welcome immigration." It just means that Canadian policies favors mass immigration. Thus, it reflects the opinion of Canadian governments over the years not of its population. It would only reflect the opinion of Canadians themselves if policy making in Canada has been done according to public opinion - by means of public consultation or participation - which has not been the case in Canada.

The same could be said about opposing Canadian policy towards international environmental agreements. Does this means that Canadians are against environmental issues dealt internationally? To agree or disagree would require research and information closer related to public opinion, rather than secondary source such as "government reaction to MEAs", especially if we take into consideration that this government represents only 39.62% of those who voted (Canada's voter turnout at the last federal election was 61.4% - one of the lowest in its history.)

Finally, the spectrum of thoughts displayed in the comments to this article are a small but important example of how Canadians are divided over the immigration issue. There is certainly many for mass immigration, but there is also many who are against it at all. Thus, we cannot affirm that there is consensus about welcoming immigrants to Canada.

Lima,
You are totally right. The Canadian embassies in counries like Argentina or Australia, I dont know if it was the case in Brazil back then, run ads in the local papers, like Buenos Aires, to invite potential immigrants to attend presentations on how marvelous life is in Canada (healthcare, space, very open labour market). Many people get hooked and go for it just to find out bitterly after a couple of years in Canada that it is a different reality.
Canada Immigration should stop misrepresenting the reality in order to attract educated immigrants and tell them that if it is far from being easy for Canadians to find a job that their level of education may entitle them to aspire to, it is way more difficult for immigrants with the same qualifications and aspirations.
Bottom line: If you live in a country like Brazil or Argentina where conditions may be difficult at times but you are doing ok, just stay there as there is not much chance for you to improve your lot significantly in Canada. Besides you won't have the 'immigrant' sticker on your forehead.

Canada is doing no good to poor countries which pay to form doctors or well educated people just to have them drained to Canada, under false pretenses by Canada Immigration, where they end up driving cabs or pouring coffee at Starbucks instead of curing the sick people or building bridges in their countries which badly need them.

I think one key difference appears to have escaped TE and other pro mass migration lobbyist. Canada issues a point based system as regards immigration, European migrants travelling within Europe have no such restrictions. Therefore what you see is peoples from poorer nations, with skills that do not benefit the recipient country, travelling to wealthier nations to take advantage of that wealthier nation, either by way of social welfare, or by undercutting the locals with reduced labour costs for their employ. This concern I feel is clearly evidenced by the rise of anti European parties within Europe.
I think the comments below so the fears of multiculturalism is a world wide problem. Whilst there are clear benefits for migration general, the sociological impact of mass immigration, would be that we may all feel less Nationalistic within our own Nation be that English, Canadian, American or whatever, as the native population is diluted by an influx of foreign born people.

In both cases, Canadians or not, they were all psychopaths without exceptions. Whether the motivation was religious (the Kingston Case) or sexual (Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka's Case), they were all cold blooded criminals. Thus, to justify any position against immigration based on the possibility that immigrants - because of their origin and religion - might commit crimes is totally fallacious and uninformed: "just because we have native born thugs does not seem to be a good reason to" deny immigrants a chance to live in Canada. It makes more sense to fear criminal psychopaths, not immigrants, as any one - Canadian or not - can be a criminal psychopath.
By the way, people are not "goods" to be "imported". Moreover, the only truly native born Canadians known belong to the First Nations. Everybody else have an immigrant ancestor some where in their family history.

Canada wants your genetic material, not necessarily you skills. Why hire a worker for McD with a high school degree when you can get one with a Master\s Degree. Better educated parents produce better behaved kids. Less social problems etc. Its a form of eugenics.

Do the names Paul Bernardo (born in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada) and Karla Homolka (born in Port Credit, Ontario, Canada) trigger any thought on you?
If not, remember: there are also Canadian criminals, some of which are of the worst type: serial killers...

You are basically talking about a non-issue. I have never heard of a Sikh being shot at in Canada and becoming a “liability” because he/she wore the wrong head gear.
In a perfect world if societal interest was put foremost we would have already banned something like smoking. The cost of smoking in Canada is infinity larger than any Sikh member wanting to wear a turban. What I do know is that there are over a million “liabilities” who practice an activity that has essentially no benefits and is the leading cause of many deaths.
If we don't ban dangerous activities (like smoking or extreme sports) then why ban head coverings? It's rather inherent in a universal healthcare system like Canada’s that you don't have to qualify for it. Ban every other dangerous life style choice and then we can talk about banning head coverings for safety reasons.
Oh and btw, in the case of face coverings, it’s simple. Ask the individual to show his or her face. If they refuse, they don’t get to board the plane :)